Arrington introduces bills to aid rural hospitals, expand telehealth in America
U.S. Rep. Jodey Arrington this week announced effort he says are aimed at fighting to ensure all Americans in rural communities have access to critical healthcare resources.
Arrington, a Lubbock Republican who serves as chairman of the House Budget Committee, filed two bills with bipartisan support that would change how rural citizens access healthcare and how their infrastructure is allowed to stay open.
Others are reading: Lubbock ISD Trustees deny removing book from elementary for same-sex couple image
Named The Telehealth Expansion Act, the bill would allow over 32 million Americans with High-Deductible Health Plans paired with Health Savings Accounts to access telehealth services before reaching the burden of meeting a deductible.
The bill will allow this expansion in coverage by amending wording in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, which has already received the support of U.S. Rep. Susie Lee, D-NV, and U.S. Rep. Brad Schneider, D-IL.
"In 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic swept across our nation, Congress wisely passed a law enabling high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) to waive or lower consumers' out-of-pocket payments for telehealth services before they reach their deductible," Schneider said. "That flexibility expired at the end of 2024, which is why I'm proud to support the Telehealth Expansion Act to restore critical access to telehealth for millions of Americans.'
The Telehealth Expansion Act has also gotten the backing of notable healthcare industry leaders, such asChris Adamec, executive director of Alliance for Connected Care, and Katy Johnson, president of American Benefits Council.
The second bill Arrington introduced would bring back critical emergency and outpatient care to rural communities whose local hospitals closed by converting to a Rural Emergency Hospital.
Called the The Second Chances for Rural Hospitals Act, the proposal would expand eligibility requirements by allowing hospitals that have been closed since 2014 to become a Rural Emergency Hospital and receive the additional funding included with the designation.
For context, Congress created the REH designation in 2020 that allows low-volume rural hospitals at risk of closure to eliminate underused inpatient beds but keep needed emergency and outpatient services
The bill is cosponsored by Rep. Jill Tokuda, D-HI, and Rep. John Rose, R-TN, with the backing of Alan Morgan, CEO of the National Rural Health Association and the Texas Organization of Rural & Community Hospitals.
According to TORCH, there have been no closures of rural hospitals in Texas since 2020. Before 2020, around three rural hospitals in Texas closed every year since 2015.
'TORCH supports the Second Chances for Rural Hospitals Act and applauds Congressman Arrington's leadership on this issue. At least two rural Texas communities lost their hospitals and need this legislation to restore access to local health services," said John Henderson, President and CEO of TORCH.
Mateo Rosiles is the Government & Public Policy reporter for the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal. Got a news tip for him? Email him at mrosiles@lubbockonline.com.
This article originally appeared on Lubbock Avalanche-Journal: Arrington introduces bills to aid rural hospitals, expand telehealth
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
"Maintaining Strong Bones Has Less To Do With Drinking Tons Of Milk": Experts Are Sharing What To Foods May Negatively Impact Your Bone Density
My grandmother has osteoporosis, along with 10 million other Americans diagnosed with the disease and 43 million others with low bone mass. Not wanting to follow in her hobbled footsteps, the rest of the women in the family are taking precautions, including consuming the recommended amount of calcium (more isn't necessarily better), adding weight-bearing exercises to our exercise regimens and attending regular doctor checkups. But according to orthopedic specialists, protecting and maintaining strong bones has less to do with drinking tons of milk (those Got Milk campaigns certainly had their intended effect) and more to do with avoiding foods and beverages that can impact our bone density. Folks concerned about osteoporosis often add calcium and vitamin D to their diets, but these supplements could hurt your bone health rather than help if not taken as needed. Dr. Liz Matzkin, associate professor at Brigham and Women's Hospital in the Department of Orthopedic Surgery in Boston, explained: 'Although calcium and Vitamin D is important to maintain bone health, exceeding the recommended doses per day can backfire and be harmful rather than beneficial. Calcium and vitamin D requirements are age dependent, so make sure you are aware of the optimal dose for you.' She advised that, for ages 50 and over, the recommendations are 1,000 milligrams per day of calcium and 800 to 1000 international units per day of vitamin D. Below, orthopedic surgeons and specialists share the foods they avoid to help lessen their risk of osteoporosis. Alcohol Related: This Picky Eater Showdown Will Be Tough For People Without Refined Palates We don't blame you if you're totally confused about whether alcohol is a healthy or unhealthy addition to your diet. Whether you've heard it's beneficial for heart health or are concerned about its effect on the liver, Matzkin cautions that sipping a few glasses of pinot or chugging lagers can negatively affect bone health. 'An increased consumption of alcohol can alter the body's ability to absorb important nutrients that are actually beneficial to bone health, such as calcium, vitamin D and magnesium,' she explained. While calcium and vitamin D often get the spotlight in this area, our sex hormones, like testosterone in men and estrogen in women, are also critical for ensuring strong bones. Angelina Waller, a physician assistant at Advanced Orthopedics in Denver, explained that alcohol 'slows the bone remodeling cycle and disrupts hormone levels.' If you do like to imbibe, Matzkin recommends no more than one alcoholic beverage per day (which is the maximum amount women should be drinking anyway, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). Older folks and those who are at risk of bone breakage should be especially cautious. 'Lastly, if you consume too much alcohol, there is a higher risk of falling and injuring or fracturing a bone,' Matzkin said. A 2018 study found a link between alcohol consumption and hip fractures. Caffeine Related: If Your Fruit And Vegetable Knowledge Is Actually Good, Prove It By Getting 22/27 Of These Questions Right While America runs on coffee, it doesn't fuel our bones. And not just coffee. Add energy drinks, soda, tea and supplements or any product with caffeine to the hit list. Just like alcohol, the idea isn't abstention but moderation. 'Caffeine has been shown to increase calcium loss and decrease calcium absorption, both of which negatively influence bone health,' Matzkin said. 'Consider decaffeinated coffee or tea options if you just need something to warm you up or, even better, a tall glass of water.' The Food and Drug Administration recommends no more than 400 milligrams of caffeine a day (about 4-5 cups of coffee), which is a good guideline to use for bone health too. The bone builder vitamin D is also affected by caffeine, which can interfere with absorption. 'Caffeine causes decreased calcium absorption and increased calcium loss in the urine,' Waller said. Soda, particularly cola, is also a culprit of bad bone health. A 2006 comparative study found that drinking cola (including diet versions!) was associated with significantly lower bone mineral density in women. The level of consumption is related to the problem: The more cola the women drank, the more significant its impact. 'Soda contains sugars and can also contain phosphoric acid and caffeine,' Matzkin said. 'All of which fail to have any health benefits and, if consumed in large quantities, will result in negative health consequences.' Wheat Bran It may come as a surprise that heart-healthy wheat bran can have a negative effect on bone health. 'Wheat bran has high levels of phytates, which can prevent calcium absorption,' Matzkin explained. Many people eat wheat bran because it's high in dietary fiber, which is essential for keeping you regular, decreasing heart disease and even preventing colon cancer, all important considerations for many Americans. Thankfully, if you're a consumer of oat bran (which is different from wheat bran), it doesn't have the same deleterious effects on bones as wheat bran, according to Matzkin, as it doesn't contain high levels of phytates. Phytates are a type of anti-nutrient naturally found in plants. Many of your favorite veggies and legumes (from kale and cabbage to beans and peanuts) contain compounds that reduce the absorption of other nutrients. Pseudoscience makes a big deal out of avoiding these compounds, but for the most part, there's no reason to avoid these otherwise-healthy foods. Beans, spinach and beets also contain anti-nutrients that can decrease calcium absorption, but soaking (in the case of dried beans) or cooking (for raw spinach and beets) lessens their impact, according to Waller. 'Beans and wheat bran contain phytates, and spinach and beets contain oxalates that decrease calcium absorption as they bind to the calcium,' she said. If you want to reduce the phytates in wheat bran, you can try soaking, sprouting or fermenting it. Since it has tons of other benefits, there's no need to completely remove it from your diet, just moderate your intake. 'As with almost all foods, moderation is key,' Matzkin said. 'No need to completely eliminate wheat bran from the diet, but understanding that it can affect [calcium] absorption should prompt supplementation with other [calcium]-rich foods.' Salt Whether your tastes run salty or sweet or salty-sweet, the white stuff is typically associated with high blood pressure rather than bone loss. But it really should be a consideration for bone health, especially for older and at-risk groups. 'Be aware of salt that can be hidden in meats, snacks and processed foods such as cold cuts,' Matzkin said. 'Consuming excessive amounts of salt (more than 2,300 milligrams per day) can lead to calcium loss from your bones.' According to a 2018 study by the Journal of the American College of Nutrition, increased sodium consumption significantly increased the risk of osteoporosis. To put that in perspective, 2,300 milligrams per day is equal to 1 teaspoon of table salt, according to the FDA. On average, Americans are eating 1.5 times that amount. This post originally appeared on HuffPost. Also in Food: I'm Not Calling You Uncultured, But If You Can't Pass This International Food Also in Food: People Are Sharing The "Unneccessary" Cooking Rules They Stopped Following Ages Ago Also in Food: If You Can't Name At Least 10 Of These Fruits, You've Got The Taste Buds Of A Toddler
New York Times
an hour ago
- New York Times
2 New York Representatives Are Denied Access to ICE Facility
Federal officials prevented two members of Congress on Sunday from entering an immigration detention facility in Manhattan where the representatives were seeking to investigate reports of overcrowding, stifling heat and migrants sleeping on bathroom floors. The representatives, Adriano Espaillat and Nydia Velázquez, both Democrats from New York, said officials at the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building had denied them access to the 10th-floor detention area because it was a 'sensitive facility.' The building, at 26 Federal Plaza, a few blocks from City Hall, has been the site of recent protests against the transport of migrants there by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. It also houses immigration courts where ICE has been making arrests in recent weeks. Members of Congress are allowed special access to any Department of Homeland Security facility, including those operated by ICE, as long as they give at least 24 hours' advance notice, according to visitation guidelines. 'Today, ICE violated all of our rights,' Representative Espaillat said at a news conference on Sunday after being turned away. 'We deserve to know what's going on on the 10th floor.' He added, 'If there's nothing wrong, there's no reason we shouldn't be able to go in to see it.' Representative Velázquez said she was outraged about being turned away. 'Our duty is to supervise any federal building,' she said. 'This is not Russia; this is the United States of America,' she added. 'The president of the United States is not a king.' A spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security, Tricia McLaughlin, said Sunday evening that the lawmakers had shown up unannounced. ICE officials had told them, she said, that they 'would be happy to give them a tour with a little more notice, when it would not disrupt ongoing law enforcement activities and sensitive law enforcement items could be put away.' The representatives arrived a day after dozens of protesters at the complex tried to block ICE vehicles carrying migrants. Many held up signs, including some that said 'Stop Deportations!' and 'To Get Our Neighbors You Have To Get Through Us!' That demonstration erupted in a clash with police officers, some of whom blasted protesters with pepper spray. The police said 22 people were taken into custody. Most were issued summonses or asked to return to court at a later date, according to a spokesman for the Manhattan district attorney. 'This is the nightmare scenario we've been taught to fear since childhood,' said John Mark Rozendaal, 64, of Manhattan, who has protested at the building over the last three weeks. We need to 'stand up to the repression that's coming into our nation,' he added. Santiago Castro, 28, a student who is from Colombia, said he had come to the demonstration for a personal reason: ICE agents arrested his father in Manhattan on Tuesday. Mr. Castro said he was demonstrating 'for my family.'
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump's ‘Big Beautiful Bill' Would Slash Medicaid & SNAP: 3 Moves Retirees Should Make Now
President Donald Trump's 'one big beautiful bill' has passed in the House and is now awaiting Senate approval. If passed, Trump's signature bill would extend the tax cuts granted by the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and add additional tax cuts. While this might be welcome news to many, the bill also includes changes to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) that could threaten seniors' access to these programs. Find Out: Read Next: 'The 'one big beautiful bill' passed by the House of Representatives, if it were passed into law today, would cut Medicaid and SNAP by a combined $1 trillion,' said Chris Orestis, president of Retirement Genius. 'In addition, because of the increase to federal debt of as much as $5 trillion, the bill would trigger an automatic reduction in Medicare funding of $500 billion,' he continued. 'This would represent the largest cut to social services and health insurance for the poor, disabled, children and the elderly in U.S. history.' Here's a look at the changes retirees can make now to secure care and avoid benefit disruptions if the bill were to pass. Before changes go into effect, check with your healthcare providers to ensure there won't be any interruption to your care if there are cuts to Medicaid. 'Check with your healthcare provider to see if they might cut back on services or cease accepting Medicaid-funded patients, and contact any nursing home where you or a loved one may reside to find out if they will be reducing the number of patients they can support — or even [if they are] possibly planning to close,' Orestis said. Knowing this ahead of time will allow you to find alternative care providers before it's too late. Learn More: If you are reliant on SNAP, start searching for alternatives that may be able to provide food assistance in the event your benefits are reduced or cut. 'Make sure you know where there are local support services through community or faith-based organizations to replace lost access through SNAP,' Orestis said. Many retirees plan to 'spend down' their savings so that they qualify for Medicaid to pay for their long-term care. However, this may no longer be a viable option. 'If you are considering going onto Medicaid for long-term care and are preparing to engage the 'spend down' process to impoverish yourself and get below the poverty level to qualify, you may want to reconsider that strategy, and instead look to leverage private pay resources to pay for your care,' Orestis said. 'If you are on Medicaid, you will primarily be reliant on nursing homes for your care, and their ability to withstand these cuts will be very challenging and up in the air,' he continued. 'If you are private pay, you are in control and can decide where and when you will receive care, such as at home or an assisted living community not funded by Medicaid.' Strategies to stay private pay for long-term care would include long-term care insurance, annuities, a life insurance settlement, a reverse mortgage or VA benefits. Editor's note on political coverage: GOBankingRates is nonpartisan and strives to cover all aspects of the economy objectively and present balanced reports on politically focused finance stories. You can find more coverage of this topic on More From GOBankingRates Clever Ways To Save Money That Actually Work in 2025 This article originally appeared on Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' Would Slash Medicaid & SNAP: 3 Moves Retirees Should Make Now
